Causal Concepts in Biology: How Pathways Differ from Mechanisms and Why It Matters

Causal Concepts in Biology: How Pathways Differ from Mechanisms and Why It Matters
复制标题

生物学中的因果概念:途径与机制有何不同及其重要性

DOI:
10.1093/bjps/axy078
复制
发表时间:
2021
期刊:
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
Ross, Lauren N.
Ross, Lauren N.
中科院分区:
--
文献类型:
--
作者:
Ross, Lauren N.

文献摘要

参考文献

被引文献

相似文献

在过去的二十年里,科学哲学中很少有主题像机械解释那样受到如此多的关注。这些解释的一个重要动机是科学家在解释生物现象时经常使用“机制”一词。当然,生物学家在解释中使用了各种因果概念,包括路径、级联、触发器和过程等概念。尽管存在这种多样性,主流哲学观点还是用单一的机制概念来解释所有这些概念。在将机制概念与其他因果概念互换使用时,尚不清楚这些解释是否很好地捕捉了生物学中因果结构的多样性。本文分析了生物学中的两个因果概念——“机制”和“途径”的概念——以及它们在生物学解释中的表现。我认为这些概念具有独特的特征,它们与因果调查的不同策略相关,并且它们在重要的不同类型的解释中占有重要地位。
Over the last two decades few topics in philosophy of science have received as much attention as mechanistic explanation. A significant motivation for these accounts is that scientists frequently use the term ‘mechanism’in their explanations of biological phenomena. Of course, biologists use a variety of causal concepts in their explanations, including concepts like pathways, cascades, triggers, and processes. Despite this variety, mainstream philosophical views interpret all of these concepts with the single notion of mechanism. In using the mechanism concept interchangeably with other causal concepts, it is not clear that these accounts well capture the diversity of causal structures in biology. This article analyses two causal concepts in biology—the notions of ‘mechanism’and ‘pathway’—and how they figure in biological explanation. I argue that these concepts have unique features, that they are associated with distinct strategies of causal investigation, and that they figure in importantly different types of explanation.
DOI: --
发表时间: 1976
期刊:
影响因子: --
作者:
E. Bickerstaff
通讯作者: E. Bickerstaff
DOI: 10.1080/09515080903238930
发表时间: 2009-01-01
影响因子: 1.4
作者:
Craver, Carl F.
通讯作者: Craver, Carl F.
DOI: 10.5860/choice.51-0866
发表时间: 2013
期刊: PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association
影响因子: --
作者:
M. Fagan
通讯作者: M. Fagan
DOI: 10.5840/newscholas196741243
发表时间: 1967-05
影响因子: 0.2
作者:
Edward Mackinnon
通讯作者: Edward Mackinnon
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195304787.003.0003
发表时间: 2009
期刊: Erkenntnis
影响因子: 0.9
作者:
Sarah K. Robins;C. Craver
通讯作者: C. Craver